Study Proposes Light Aircraft Carriers for the Future Fleet

[spazsinbad]

Study Proposes Light Aircraft Carriers for the Future Fleet
09 Feb 2017 RICHARD R. BURGESS

"ARLINGTON, Va. — A new fleet architecture study by a Washington think tank calls for 12 large nuclear-powered carriers (CVNs) as well as 10 light carriers (CVLs) in the future fleet.

The 10 CVLs would gradually replace the large-deck amphibious assault ships (LHAs/LHDs) currently in or being built for the fleet. The CVLs are the most significant change in ship types recommended in a new report, “Restoring American Seapower: A New Fleet Architecture for the United States Navy,” authored by naval analysts for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) and conducted for the Navy in response to requirements of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act.

The study proposes the CVLs to be 40,000-ton to 60,000-ton conventionally powered ships with catapults and arresting gear that would be able to operate tailhook aircraft in addition to short-takeoff-and-landing F-35B strike fighters....

...“In the near-term, existing LHA/LHD amphibious assault ships would be employed as CVLs using a loadout of twenty to twenty-five F-35B aircraft. As they reach the end of their service life, LHA/LHD-derived CVLs would be replaced by purpose-built CVLs with a displacement similar to a Cold War-era Midway-class aircraft carrier and equipped with catapults and arresting gear. As a result, CVL air wings would be able to become slightly larger and incorporate airborne electronic attack (AEA) and airborne early warning (AEW) aircraft that are catapult-launched and require an arrested landing.”

The networking capabilities of the F-35B have inspired naval leaders to consider using LHAs/LHDs as much more capable platforms for power projection. During Operation Desert Storm, the LHA USS Nassau carried 20 AV-8B Harrier II jets — rather than the normal six — in a “Harrier Carrier” role. A deck full of F-35Bs would give the ship significant power-projection capabilities....

...a CVL’s air combat element of F-35Bs would provide strike, air defense, close air support, airborne electronic attack (AEA) and surveillance missions. For airborne early warning (AEW) and control, the LHA/LHD air wings “will rely on shore-based maritime patrol aircraft and E-2Ds,” the study said.

“As the Navy builds CVLs with catapults and arresting gear, the CVL air wing will evolve to add one to two UCAVs [unmanned combat aerial vehicles], one to two utility/tanker unmanned vehicles, one to two AEW aircraft, and AEA aircraft needed for the threat environment. This evolution will require Navy-Marine Corps air wing integration, as is done today in CVN CVWs [carrier air wings].”..."

Source: http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20170209-cvls.html

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

So the Navy is taking the amphibious assault capability away from the Marines?

[steve2267]

So the Navy is taking the amphibious assault capability away from the Marines?

No. Sounds to me more like they are taking the amphibious capability away from the LHA and just making it a CVL. Probably add two catapults, and an angled deck with arrestor gear for landing. All amphib and probably most helos and tiltotors would operate off landing dock and landing platform ships. UNLESS they are proposing CVLs in addition to LHAs and LHAs would be retained for helos / tiltrotors.

Dang... what have we been arguing about for all these months? We should form our own think tank. Then we could get paid for all our yacking.

[XanderCrews]

Remember very one batching about USS America?

Marines are trend setters

[neptune]

[quote="spazsinbad"][quote]Study Proposes Light Aircraft Carriers for the Future Fleet
..

The 10 CVLs would gradually replace the large-deck amphibious assault ships (LHAs/LHDs) currently in or being built for the fleet. ....

As a result, CVL air wings would be able to become slightly larger and incorporate airborne electronic attack (AEA) and airborne early warning (AEW) aircraft that are catapult-launched and require an arrested landing.”

The networking capabilities of the F-35B have inspired naval leaders to consider using LHAs/LHDs as much more capable platforms for power projection. During Operation Desert Storm, the LHA USS Nassau carried 20 AV-8B Harrier II jets — rather than the normal six — in a “Harrier Carrier” role. A deck full of F-35Bs would give the ship significant power-projection capabilities....

...a CVL’s air combat element of F-35Bs would provide strike, air defense, close air support, airborne electronic attack (AEA) and surveillance missions. For airborne early warning (AEW) and control, the LHA/LHD air wings “will rely on shore-based maritime patrol aircraft and E-2Ds,” the study said.

“As the Navy builds CVLs with catapults and arresting gear, the CVL air wing will evolve to add one to two UCAVs [unmanned combat aerial vehicles], one to two utility/tanker unmanned vehicles, one to two AEW aircraft, and AEA aircraft needed for the threat environment. This evolution will require Navy-Marine Corps air wing integration, as is done today in CVN CVWs [carrier air wings].”...quote]

LHA-6 USS America class* (45,693 t) full load) with;

F-35B*, MV-22B (RO/RO tankers)*, MV-22B (design upgrade for AEW/ AEA)

* existing and a bit less expensive


...
E-2D - Max. takeoff weight: 57,500 lb
MV-22B - Max. rolling takeoff weight: 57,000 lb (STOL)

[spazsinbad]

Big Wars, Small Ships: CSBA’s Alternative Navy
09 Feb 2017 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"...Aircraft Carriers: While both the Navy and CSBA agree the fleet needs 12 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers` (up from 11 CVNs today), CSBA also wants to supplement the super-carriers with 10 smaller, conventionally powered “light carriers” (CVL). The CVLs would evolve from and replace current “big-deck” amphibious assault ships, sacrificing the capacity for landing craft in order to accommodate more aircraft. McCain has endorsed the light carrier idea, but the Navy and Marines are skeptical, preferring the flexibility of current big-decks...." [not exactly clear - CVNs? I guess so because there is no mention of the LHA with a bunch of F-35Bs notion]

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/big- ... tive-navy/

[neptune]

.... McCain has endorsed the light carrier idea...

...not overly impressed with any of his democrat endorsements...

Big decks; LHA/ LHD serve the 1,700 Marines awaiting below deck....H-53, V-22, H-1, H-60, F-35, AV-8 versatility... with or without a well deck....

[popcorn]

It's CSBA. What do the end-users think about it?
Navy will be fine so long as the CVLs don't take money away from the CVN fleet which they want to expand to 12 hulls.
The Marines have expressed a preference for the versatility of having a well deck for future large deck gators starting with LHA-8. Maybe they will be more amenable if they get more funding to actually deploy a 4-ship ARG.
It''s basically a money issue.

[count_to_10]

A series of light carriers with catapults?
Seems a bit short sighted considering the advancements being made in STOVL.

[h-bomb]

A series of light carriers with catapults?
Seems a bit short sighted considering the advancements being made in STOVL.

I think you have that backwards. If they have cats and trap they can operate anything. The Navy is not looking for large VSTOL Drones yet, or a VSTOL Hawkeye replacement.

If you do not include cats and traps you can use only helo's, V-22's and AV-8/F-35Bs. That would be short sighted. If you step back they are talking about a US Charles De Gaulle equivalent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ai ... _de_Gaulle

[count_to_10]

A series of light carriers with catapults?
Seems a bit short sighted considering the advancements being made in STOVL.

I think you have that backwards. If they have cats and trap they can operate anything. The Navy is not looking for large VSTOL Drones yet, or a VSTOL Hawkeye replacement.

If you do not include cats and traps you can use only helo's, V-22's and AV-8/F-35Bs. That would be short sighted. If you step back they are talking about a US Charles De Gaulle equivalent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ai ... _de_Gaulle

You already have the CVs to handle "everything", and, as I said, more and more aircraft are going to be capable of STOVL. The cats and traps aren't free, and the point would be a cheaper type of ship for deployment looking forward two or three decades, by which time a lot more STOVL aircraft will likely be available. That's why it is short sighted.

[steve2267]

I don't know if it would fit (wingspan-wise) on an LHA, or a CVL, for that matter, but once AETP has developed a triple-flow engine in the 45,000 class, I wonder if you could build off an X-47B type design with two AETP powered liftfans for a stealthy, STOVL tanker / ISR platform?

[old_rn]

If the USN was cheaper carriers with an LPH option why not build UK CVF (Queen Elizabeth class). Standard crew (excl. flight crew) of less than 700, less than $5bn each, space for significant USMC embsrked force..........

[bojack_horseman]

If the USN was cheaper carriers with an LPH option why not build UK CVF (Queen Elizabeth class). Standard crew (excl. flight crew) of less than 700, less than $5bn each, space for significant USMC embsrked force..........

I've read that if the USN started building Queen-Liz type carriers then the bean-counters would demand that more expensive CVNs be ditched altogether to save money.

But anyway, the US doesn't need a QE-style carrier seeing as the UK is building one for them!

The USMC will probably comprise the bulk of the QE-carriers fighter compliment for quite some time.
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us- ... e-official

[35_aoa]

How about we fix the existing fleet of USN/USMC tacair, and then start the good idea fairy contest?